Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  Next

Comments 84201 to 84250:

  1. The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
    Ken >"Why would Jim Hansen draw a conclusion from a 6 year period at all? Maybe he thought it was significant.", The problem arises when you blindly extrapolate short term trends to draw conclusions about the long term without considering the underlying physics. That does not imply that one cannot analyze short term periods at all, which would be a ridiculous claim. You are also confusing "statistically significant" with "significant" as in important or noteworthy. Six years are not enough to establish a statistically significant long term global trend, and Hansen never claimed otherwise. That does not mean that those years are unworthy of study or discussion. You are conflating two distinct concepts and arguing a strawman.
  2. The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
    Dan Olner & Dana1981 If your mildly amusing sarcasm can allow for a peek into the world of logic, you might conclude that Jim Hansen is also discussing 'short term' variation - in this case 2005-11 - a 6 year period of OHC reduction. Why would Jim Hansen draw a conclusion from a 6 year period at all? Maybe he thought it was significant. [ -inflammatory comment snipped-]
  3. Stephen Baines at 09:38 AM on 2 June 2011
    Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
    Looking at those noaa data...The proxy values and the measured temps agree up until the last point when the reconstruction underestimates the measured temps extratropical temps by >0.3 C! Evidence of proxies failing now in the face of warming? There was also a 0.2C jump from 1990-2000 (the last year of shared record) to 2000-2010 in HadCrut NH. The fact that the extratropical data will have larger anamolies than the NH data contributes even more to the discrepancy. In any case, the current measured decadal NH anomalies (>0.5C) are clearly well above any reconstructed values. And the extratropical values will differ even more. I don't see what RyanStarr is complaining about.
  4. The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
    michael sweet #12 The 11 year Solar ripple has an amplitude of about 0.25W/sq.m top to bottom. From a mean, it can only account for half that amplitude - 0.13W/sq.m reduction in the imbalance. The total reduction of the imbalance is 0.31W/sq.m so Solar minimum accounts for less than half. Don't forget that Hansen's 0.59W/sq.m is based on the Von Schukmann OHC construction which is far from robust. Other OHC constructions approach zero. Let me know when China and India stop buying Australian coal to turn into CO2 and aerosols. China is opening the equivalent of Australia's total coal fired capacity EVERY YEAR for the next 10 years. Could someone explain to a person not born in the 1980's (me) what is 'trolling'? I have not completed a course in SKS-speak.
    Response:

    [DB] "Could someone explain to a person not born in the 1980's (me) what is 'trolling'?  I have not completed a course in SKS-speak."

    From the Wiki:

    In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

    Note that any SkS usage is the same as above.

  5. Michael Hauber at 09:13 AM on 2 June 2011
    Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
    I still see a cooling trend for the main nino tongue even when trending from 1974. Considering that 74 was the start of a very strongue multi-year cool event, and the world as a whole has warmed up significantly since 1974, I think the cooling is quite significant, even though it doesn't look like much. The cooling tongue and doesn't really cover the nino 3.4 region, but I bet the areas in the east that it does cover are the ones most important for Amazon rainfall. And by cooling tongue I include all the white area which in absolute terms is neither cooling, or warming, but relative to the rest of the world is cooling.
  6. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    And I am of the opinion that the Washington Generals would beat the Miami Heat four straight in a seven game series if they ever met on the basketball court. In fact, I'm willing to bet Adrian Smits' life savings on that!
  7. Bob Lacatena at 08:33 AM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    163, adrian smits, Okay, now that's really interesting. You are of the opinion that... Doesn't that strike you as funny? Read the words. Opinion. As if you get to believe whatever you want, as in choosing a religion or a political candidate to support. You do understand the problem here, don't you? Do you think maybe you could quell that opinion for a while, and instead invest a goodly amount of time into researching the facts, so that you can ultimately replace that opinion with, oh, I don't know, maybe a confident understanding of the situation, and the likely (not desired) outcomes?
  8. Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
    Well I checked the Ljungqvist data at noaa and its definitely through to 2000. The overlay doesnt match HadCrut NH 2000-2010 but you expect extratropical to be higher. I cant find an easy way to extract that time series.
  9. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Let's see the evidence for your opinion, adrian smits.
  10. adrian smits at 07:46 AM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    I am of the opinion that negative feed backs will limit the long term contribution of co2 doubling to one third of its actual forcing in the atmosphere! That would amount one third of one degree C by 2100.There would of course be an additional amount of warming from another doubling in another 300 years but that would require every every barrel of oil and ton coal on the planet.Somehow I don't see that as very likely!
    Response:

    [DB] Unless you can offer up some physics-based mechanisms to justify said opinions you are telling us that you are a climate denier.  Given that the climate has already warmed from pre-industrial CO2 levels by more than your vaunted one-third of 1° C.

    Is that correct?

  11. Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
    Its interesting watching those models Rob. Last month only one model was predicting El Nino. Now its nearly half. The variance in opinion suggests some really fundamental differences even in the physical models. It looks like a fascinating area to be be working in.
  12. The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
    This will might brighten your day, not. Prospect of limiting the global increase in temperature to 2ºC is getting bleaker
    Response:

    [dana1981] Indeed, we have a post on this bleak news coming in the very near future.  Stay tuned.

  13. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    "I don't know what evidence would be sufficient for a denier at this level." That's the reason I asked - there is absolutely no point having discussions with anyone (Poptart springs to mind) who can imagine no evidence that would change their mind (or demand that climate theory comply with predictions that it doesnt make). On the other hand, for more open-minded people, this is a very good (the scientific) way to think about the issues involved. A lot of denial is rooted in political values (anti-Gore, anti-greenie, stinking taxes, World gov'nment) and its interesting to see whether such people can consider the hypothetical question of what action should be done if they were convinced it was true. I'm hoping that from such discussions, we might actually find effective policy directions that are acceptable to conservative/right wing values.
  14. Bob Lacatena at 07:24 AM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    L.J. Ryan will believe in climate change when you pry the gas can from his cold, dead fingers. And even then he'll still insist that it wasn't due to CO2, because that would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you know, the one that says deniers can apply any hard science and mathematics they like, as long as they do so incompletely and with a flawed understanding, because to actually understand and apply the science properly would lead to the wrong conclusion (i.e. the correct, real-world, truthful conclusion that they don't want to reach, no matter what the cost).
  15. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    This 'conversation' is incoherent.
  16. Rob Painting at 07:13 AM on 2 June 2011
    Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
    Alexandre - Actually I do remember a study that specifically references southern Brazil, see if I can track it down.
  17. Stephen Baines at 07:12 AM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    L.J. Obviously e meant dhogaza.
  18. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    e 154 Ah e Sphaerica's point is skeptics are(Deniers)and equating skeptics to Holocaust deniers. No mention of CO2 lasers.
    Response:

    [DB] e meant Dhogaza.  Please return to being on-topic.

  19. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Thanks, KR. This is a closed mind. No possible engagement.
  20. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Moderators - I'm noting the other blog threads here because I was personally involved in discussing this topic with L.J.Ryan in both locations.
  21. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Note - L.J. Ryan has spent quite a bit of time here (on the 2nd Law thread) and upon Jonova (two different 2nd law threads where Jo Nova pointed out quite correctly that there is no conflict with the greenhouse effect) insisting that, no, indeed, the radiative greenhouse theory is thermodynamically impossible. This is denial, not skepticism, asserting things that are flatly contradicted by the world around us. scaddenp, I don't know what evidence would be sufficient for a denier at this level.
  22. Stephen Baines at 06:41 AM on 2 June 2011
    CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
    Trunkmonkey...Fig three in that Le Quere et al paper does not depict sources and sinks areas for CO2, but rather the difference in rates of change in CO2 over time in the ocean and atmosphere at those points. For a general map of source and sink areas you'd be better off looking at this. You also have your CO2 sink and source waters mixed up. The THC moves warm salty water to the north Atlantic where it cools and sinks. The North Atlantic is a sink for atmospheric CO2 because, as the Gulf Stream cools on it's northward trek, it absorbs more CO2 from the atmosphere before sinking. Algae also grow there seasonally, taking up CO2 eventually sinking to depth where they decompose. Tropical upwelling regions are sources of atmospheric CO2 because deep water that is cold and has high CO2 warms after reaching the surface, resulting in the release of CO2 to the atmosphere. The only way this doesn't happen is if algae growing on the nutrients contained in that water suck up the CO2 before it has a chance to escape. The deep water has high CO2 because it was cold when it sank (as in the North Atlantic) and because CO2 from respiration of sinking organic matter builds up over time. The fact that the ocean has source and sink regions is largely moot to your question though. Under steady atmospheric CO2, the source and sink regions balance each other - they represents CO2 being shuffled around, nothing more. When atmospheric CO2 increases, that balance between sources and sinks shifts. More CO2 gets absorbed by the mixed layer all over the ocean. More also gets absorbed by cooling surface waters that form deep water. Less CO2 is lost when cold water upwells and warms. The ability of the ocean to absorb more CO2 as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase is a matter of physical chemistry. You can't get around it without violating some basic law or another. The only serious scientific question (and we're going back to the 1950s, here) was whether the ocean sink could keep up with emissions. The answer was a resounding no. If you absolutely need a telling observation, a warming ocean that is becoming acidic must be absorbing CO2. Normally when the ocean warms its pH increases as it gives up CO2 to the atmosphere. The fact that the ocean is warming and declining in pH is a sure sign that CO2 is following the concentration gradient into the ocean.
  23. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    L.J. Ryan, how about telling us what evidence in say 10 years time would convince you that you were wrong? (ie. convince us that your opinions about the world are based on data).
  24. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    DB 152 & Rob Honeycutt 151 Understanding CO2 is no more important then understanding juggling, coffee beans, or why canines like peanut butter. The issue, how GHG physics radiative insulation,re-radiation warms the surface. CO2 laser (not of my introduction)a have nothing to do with atmosphere CO2...that's my point. ( - Complaint about moderation snipped - )
    Moderator Response:

    [e] The comment policy of this site has already been clearly pointed out to you. Any comments that violate this policy will be trimmed or deleted.

    Sphaerica's Dhogaza's point is that CO2 lasers function due to the radiative properties of CO2, the understanding of which is a component of atmospheric physics and climate models. Now, please get back on topic.

  25. Eric (skeptic) at 05:05 AM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Thanks dhogaza, but I was asking what Tom's hypothetical "fair minded casual reader" would think. That means we have to agree on the mindset of an FMCR. I'm pretty sure that an FMCR would not equate the death threat with the accusation of criminality, but I asked whether the FMCR would find them both unacceptable. I hope that clarifies.
  26. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    JMurphy 150 What is the question?
    Response:

    [DB] Let's assume you are confused and not being intentionally obtuse:

    Dhogaza pointed out that the physical properties of CO2 are extremely well understood. 

    You answered by asking "So what's your point?"

    JMurphy wanted to know what your point was in asking Dhogaza "So what's your point?".

    Do you have one?  If not, let's let this drop.

  27. Rob Honeycutt at 04:28 AM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    L.J. Ryan... I think dhogaza's point is quite clear. He's saying the properties of CO2 are extremely well understood.
  28. CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
    Dikran Marsupial @6. As much relief as it is to be exonerated from lying, it is still a disappointment to remain a simpleton for not understanding that a large amount of CO2 essentially sequestered amongst hordes of H2Ov molecules in the lower troposphere is "entirely irrelevant to the greenhouse effect"; particularly as I wasn't discussing the greenhouse effect, but rather possible ways CO2 might contrtol water. I was trying to suggest (however crudely)that the lower troposphere is probably not a good place to look. Thanks for Le Quere 2009. Fig 2d does show a slight trend in increased ocean uptake, but it is from a model simulation, and the unexplained residual (2e) is greater than the trend. I was more interested if Fig 3 where actual measurements show CO2 outgassing in the circum antarctic beltway, the gulf stream, and the Indo Pacific warm pool that has garnered so much interest recently. It shows CO2 uptake in the northern Pacific. Imagine the THC superimposed on this map. The THC redistributes the cold salty Arctic/Atlantic (and the Antarctic) bottom water to the Pacific and Indian oceans. The net SST effect is to warm the Atlantic and cool the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The areas of outgassing in Fig 3 are the warm surface currents of the THC. (IMO the Indo Pacific warm pool is simply a backup of the Pacific return warm current at the restriction of Micronesia) Trunkmonkey prediction: Further data will show that the Indian Ocean, particularly whichever side of the IOD the cold water us upwelling on, will be a sink for CO2.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You asked "How do you know the oceans are a carbon sink and not a source?" the graph shows the ocean to be a considerable sink in absolute terms, the downward trend is a second order issue, so I don't know why you are fixating on the trend. Whenever the line is below zero, the oceans are a sink, whatever the slope of the line may be. You need to learn the basics first, that the oceans are a net sink is pretty basic.
  29. The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
    okatiniko "You live in a huge country : do you have any idea of how travelling across it without oil for instance ?" That is the point. You don't travel as much without the energy. Is there a problem with that? Does someone have the right to travel long distances?
  30. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    L.J. Ryan wrote : "So what's your point?" It would be good if you could actually answer that question.
  31. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    dhogaza 148 "No, I'm pointing out that the physical properties of CO2 are extremely well understood by physicists..." So what's your point?
  32. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    LJ Ryan:
    Are you suggesting atmospheric CO2 is functionally equivalent to a CO2 laser?
    No, I'm pointing out that the physical properties of CO2 are extremely well understood by physicists and to imagine otherwise is an example of extreme denialism.
  33. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric (skeptic): "is an acceptable statement by a climate scientist? Or would a fair minded reader believe that to be unacceptable along with anonymous death threats." Color me old-fashioned, but I still recognize the difference between a call for legal action vs. a threat to kill someone. I'm rather appalled at your attempt to equate the two. Far more egregious than someone pointing out that science denialists and history (holocaust) denialists share certain traits ... And being a scientist does not mean that one can not or should not speak as a person. For federal employees, that's well-established in law, BTW. US Forest Service employees can speak out against USFS logging policies, if they want, including attending rallies and demonstrations against such policies, as long as they don't try to paint their personal views as being official views of portions of the agency (wearing your uniform at a demonstration's not a good idea, for instance). Hansen, as a NASA employee, is free to speak his mind as a person as long as he doesn't try to represent his personal opinions as being those of NASA. Why don't you respect his legal rights, and why do you attempt to equate them with the making of death threats?
  34. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    garethman:
    but what do we call people who refuse to recognise on principle any peer reviewed research which does not fit with their complete belief in climate change models of one sort or another. Dogmatist? Taliban?
    Perhaps you could be specific. One doesn't have to be dogmatist to reject the content of papers that claim, for instance, that modern physics violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or that claims that sensitivity is low based on cherry-picking short-term data, or that claims that satellites show that the world isn't warming when in reality the calculation contained several simple algebraic errors, etc etc. And what does "complete belief in climate change models" mean, anyway? No modeler holds that view. No serious student of the subject holds that view. Yet, they've proven themselves useful.
  35. Eric (skeptic) at 03:50 AM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Tom Curtis, #138, point 1: would a fair minded reader also think that "CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." is an acceptable statement by a climate scientist? Or would a fair minded reader believe that to be unacceptable along with anonymous death threats.
  36. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    "Apparently you didn't read Sphaerica's post which plainly stated: "Deniers are like Holocaust deniers. They are exactly like them."" See my 135 in which I said that I'd missed sphaerica's post.
  37. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Nice definition of the difference between a skeptic and a denier. Do we have a name for the opposite philosophy? Ie the skeptic title would be the same I suppose, but what do we call people who refuse to recognise on principle any peer reviewed research which does not fit with their complete belief in climate change models of one sort or another. Dogmatist? Taliban? I suspect somewhere around the centre ground are a group of people who take a healthy interest and are happy to look at any genuine evidence, pro or anti.
  38. Bob Lacatena at 03:14 AM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    139, apiratelooksat50,
    Probably be a good idea for you to win some converts to the cause.
    Yes, but those converts won't come from the arrogant, lordly type who tend to post on real science blogs, let alone from the absurdly silly Wattsians that post on WUWT. The converts will come from the real skeptics who, because they are skeptical, don't post comments. They're not sure, and they're trying to learn. They're trying to wade through the morass of nonsense posted by the deniers to try to figure out where the real truth lies. And they aren't going to be offended by any widening gulf between deniers and people who understand the science. Quite to the contrary, it's going to illuminate things for them. So I encourage J. Bob to keep posting allegations that scientists are in it for the money. I encourage L.J. Ryan to keep expressing his palpable distaste at my total disregard for deniers as a collective group. I encourage all of the totally wrong and ridiculously starry eyed misinformation that deniers post. Because in the end, a large body of people are reading it, and doing what I did some years back, when I was still on the fence. They're shaking their heads, and going to the search box, and hunting down where the real truth lies. And after enough falsehoods have been exposed, there is one less skeptic in the room, and eventually all that is left are the educated, and the hopeless deniers.
  39. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Pirate: "The result creates a polarization and widens the gulf between believers and skepics." Any scientist should be a skeptic. That's why there is no theory without the material, evidential basis of experimentation and observation. Skeptics--and correct me if I'm wrong, pirate--should, based on existing evidence, develop a set of probabilities for a given theory, and then dynamically adjust those probabilities as new data arrive. No theory--not religion, not economic mode, not climate model, not government system--should be given a free pass (unquestioned acceptance). This is all I ask of anyone engaging in public debate: incorporate as much evidence as you can into your position, and when you encounter information that cannot be explained by your position, find the position that once again covers everything. Ignoring evidence, cherry-picking, crying "we don't know anything" when one element of a complex system is not yet well-understood, an unwillingness to ask questions for the sake of understanding (as opposed to asking them to accuse), and unwillingness to accept change in one's fundamental beliefs -- these are all signs that one's skeptical attitude is on vacation. An interesting question I'd like to see posed here is "Where will the global temp be in May 2050, and what are the five most significant factors in your prediction?" LJ, your comment at 111 is completely devoid of evidence. It's empty rhetoric. There's nothing worse than having to read a paragraph of empty rhetoric. Where exactly is your problem with the theory and the evidence upon which it is based (appropriate thread, please)? I suspect clips are made based on the interpretation that a comment is designed to generate a sticky stream of useless rhetorical discharge rather than inspire a progressive (uh-oh, I mean constructive) dialogue. The economic mode is perhaps even more complex than the climate, and there just isn't enough room here to engage constructively toward that subject. One well-managed thread connecting economic mode with climate would, I suspect, within two weeks generate more comments than all other threads combined (excepting the endless 2nd law thread, of course).
  40. Bob Lacatena at 03:05 AM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    135, dhogaza,
    Oh, I see that Sphaerica has ... I disapprove, actually.
    I used to take that stance, until I had the word denier constantly edited from posts on a denial site, while "alarmist", "warmist", and any number of other labels were allowed to stand, and the legions of loyal followers bravely labeled themselves as "skeptics." All the while, their own understanding of the science would have shamed a ten year old. Then I started to think about it, and I realized that while the word was never intended to invoke that image, the emotional and culpable similarities are striking. Deniers didn't stumble into open dislike of that particular barb because they were overly sensitive. They stumbled in because, in their hearts, they know that it really does apply. I'm a little tired of "playing nice" with people who demonstrate a complete lack of ethics, often accompanied by extreme ignorance. And I'm not sure who's worse, the ignorant who are arrogant enough to think they know better, or those that know better and yet willfully, consciously play fast and loose with the facts to maintain the illusion of serious denial. When someone acts like a real skeptic (a pitifully infrequent behavior), I'll give them credit. When someone acts like a run-of-the-mill denier, I will be at first polite and reasonable, but I'll know who I'm dealing with, and what I'm thinking and what I'm posting may well be two very, very different things.
  41. apiratelooksat50 at 03:02 AM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    dhogaza @ 132 "Somehow I doubt that the laws of physics care at all about vitriolic comments ..." No one implied that. If Sphaerica is concerned about AGW and the goal is to immediately commence mitigation efforts, then it will be up to governments to enact laws to put those efforts into place. Most countries citizens will have to vote. Right now in the US, things aren't looking so good for that in the public perception. Probably be a good idea for you to win some converts to the cause. dhogaza @ 134 Apparently you didn't read Sphaerica's post which plainly stated: "Deniers are like Holocaust deniers. They are exactly like them."
  42. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    apiratelooksat50 @131: 1) While the vitriol may do poorly influence the casual reader, the fair minded casual reader will probably be more concerned about the side that sends death threats along with a torrent of vitriol both by email and in blogs; 2) While possibly concerned at the frustration so evident in Sphaerica's comments, the fair minded reader would have been more concerned by the casual accusations and insinuations of fraud by scientists which have been posted by deniers on this site over the last two days, and which can be found in overwhelming numbers on denier sites, often accompanied with self congratulating posts about how high a standard of debate, and how polite the debate is on those sites. It is noticable that those accusations and insinuations pass without censor from you, while you argue that the websites that started those accusations are good sites for students to use as sources when studying science. 3) Any chance of reconciliation between climate science and deniers is entirely illusory and has been for some time. This is because the scientists insist on reporting reality, and its reality that the deniers have a problem with.
  43. Bob Lacatena at 02:58 AM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    131, apiratelooksat50,
    widens the gulf between believers and skepics
    I'd forgotten that one. "Believers." Another trick name to make it look like people who understand the science are somehow indulging a religious faith. Let me make it clear. I don't attack individuals (unless they demonstrate clear, unethical behavior, so many deniers do), but I will label the behavior of deniers as such. When someone drifts into denial, or their skepticism comes across as nothing more than a veil to hide their denial, then I will say as much. I personally don't care about the feelings of deniers (if you feel the denier label applies to you, then that's your conscience at work, but yes, my sensitivity to the difference between an actual skeptic and a simple denier is a lot lower than yours, I'm sure). My take is that deniers don't care about anything except their own money and economic standing. They pretend to have lots of reasons for adopting their position, but in the end it's either greed, anger or ignorance.
  44. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
    This is a great series; thanks for doing it. I do have a question about the actual temperature measurements. Can you expound a bit on what is actually measured and recorded at the stations? I have an image of a person going out and looking at a thermometer every hour and writing down the temperature that he observes. What can we say about the accuracy of the instrument and the precision of his observation? Does he then report every day the hourly recordings? Is his station location (lat/long/alt) also captured somehow? Is a daily average computed from the hourly data points? Thanks.
    Response:

    [DB] This may help with some of your questions.

  45. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    dhogaza 120 "Wake me up when CO2 lasers stop working ... " Are you suggesting atmospheric CO2 is functionally equivalent to a CO2 laser?
  46. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Oh, I see that Sphaerica has ... I disapprove, actually.
  47. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    apirate ... "They are offensive in comparing it to Holocaust deniers..." this is a comparison that only exists in the minds of tone trolls, the fact that you buy into it is telling. Where has anyone here made such a comparison? Who is the only poster here who has made the comparison? That would be you ...
  48. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    DB 111 ( -Ideological diatribe snipped- ) Response: [DB] Please refrain from the use of all-caps and keep the focus on the science, not on politics and ideologies. My post is ideological and political. But Sphaerica 114 calling skeptics (Deniers)and then equating skeptics to Holocaust deniers is not ideological not political? I suspect you snip based context accuracy and brunt, not as you declared, an objective washing of politics and ideology.
    Response:

    [DB] Greater leeway is allowed than normal, considering the subject matter of this thread.  The appellation Denier is inherent to this thread, unfortunately.

    Introducing yet more politics and ideologies pushes the thread into a train wreck.

    As to Sphaerica's post, he was relating it into the context of denial of the science, which is the subject of this thread.  The part about the Holocaust was a personal opinion, yet also within the context of this thread, as it is a very common reaction from the skeptic contingent.

    Let's all be civil and compose temperate remarks, rather than typing the first or second things that come into our heads.  Or, like me, I end up deleting my own comments upon further reflection.

    Complaints about moderation, unfortunately, tend to get disappeared.

  49. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    apirate ... "While I can appreciate your passion, your vitriolic comments are doing more harm than good for your cause." Somehow I doubt that the laws of physics care at all about vitriolic comments ...
  50. apiratelooksat50 at 02:05 AM on 2 June 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Sphaerica @ 114, From a Skeptic, not a Denier: While I can appreciate your passion, your vitriolic comments are doing more harm than good for your cause. They are offensive in comparing it to Holocaust deniers, incorrect in assuming skeptics don't accept climate change, and unwise because they misdirect rational discourse. The result creates a polarization and widens the gulf between believers and skepics. If your goal is to teach - then teach. You have an audience here of intelligent and educated people. Remembering that you and I partially agree, I suspect that you categorize people like me who don't fully agree with you as un-intelligent, and therefore not worthy of your teaching. You complained about being mistreated at WUWT, so I would expect that you would treat skeptics on this site with the respect and dignity that you desire. In other posts on this thread, I've stated very clearly my position. We differ solely on our perceptions of the predicted results and to what level mitigation efforts should be enacted.

Prev  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us